Johns Hopkins Undergrad Kills Burglar with a Samurai Sword

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

See, I don't understand why. If it was a gun and he shot the guy three times until he had stopped/fallen to the ground, I don't think people would care whether he was trained or not. If a stranger breaks into my house, you bet I would assume he could harm me, and I'd defend myself with whatever I could find - baseball bat, gun, sword, Mag Light - and I don't think I'd stop until I thought the guy was no longer a danger to me (or until he ran off). Even if this guy's hand was practically chopped off, who's to say he didn't have a gun in his belt that he could shoot with the other hand?

I think home burglars have to be some of the stupidest people around, especially to do it at night when people are likely there.

This is entirely dependent upon the circumstances of the case and the law where you're at - hence why none of the lawyer contingent have (or will) chime in.

With that in mind . . . once he's cut the guy's hand off, further slices could well be construed as striking at an intruder who was already disabled or otherwise no longer a threat. This would be (nearly) akin to shooting an intruder in the back as he runs away, or shooting an intruder who is on his knees with his hands behind his head giving himself up, in some places that do not automatically allow deadly force - which we'd both agree should probably not be legal under all circumstances.

[littleowl33]

They released the name of the student. I won't post it here, but it turns out he's a senior who's a friend of a friend of mine. He's a pretty normal, white, middle-class kid. As of right now he's been released from custody and is home, free of any charges. His roommates were released earlier today. That's all I know.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

With that in mind . . . once he's cut the guy's hand off, further slices could well be construed as striking at an intruder who was already disabled or otherwise no longer a threat. This would be (nearly) akin to shooting an intruder in the back as he runs away, or shooting an intruder who is on his knees with his hands behind his head giving himself up, in some places that do not automatically allow deadly force - which we'd both agree should probably not be legal under all circumstances.

Who says that the guys hand was cut off first? What if it was one of the final wounds? Even if the intruder were rendered hand-less early on in the altercation, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take him to the ground and incapacitate him. At that point, the intruder is fighting for his life, and I'm sure that he fought as hard as he could for as long as he could, despite a missing hand and lots of blood loss.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Who says that the guys hand was cut off first? What if it was one of the final wounds? Even if the intruder were rendered hand-less early on in the altercation, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take him to the ground and incapacitate him. At that point, the intruder is fighting for his life, and I'm sure that he fought as hard as he could for as long as he could, despite a missing hand and lots of blood loss.

All of this is possible. It's a hypothetical. We don't know. I'm not even close to licensed in the state of MD. Take it easy - I'm merely pointing out there is a VERY legitimate pathway to legal action, even though I personally would find it distasteful.